Saturday, December 12, 2015

Metaphysical Deduction of Evil's Doom (both as sui generis and as omnibus et singularis)

By the integration of logic and fact in a way that is fundamental and complete in unity and harmony, we can obtain, by deduction, Understanding of Reality. That is the objective of Metaphysics.  An example is in that even the most subtle facts in logic can be extremely relevant to the most "everyday" way of thinking about "everyday" issues.  It is a relevant aside, by the say, that the fact that these subtleties exist "simply in the minds" of those who think them is a strong argument that they existed before the fact of being thought, because it turns out that these principles are metaphysically deductive.

Among these relevant subtleties in logic there is the matter of where an issue exists in the form of deciding between two or more equally possible means of categorizing of a thing.  It may be that they are very distinct, such as the distinctions between aspects of an entity versus different forms of entity, and even to the point that within one of those categories may be many issues just as diverse as between the two categories which are higher in order, and that this may go on ad infinitum.

There is a great distinction between an attribute and a substance.  An attribute is that which is rooted in a substance but from which is distinct in being a mode of that substance and not the substance in re aeternalis .  That is not necessarily a feature of the way reality is in itself, but it is a function of how the human mind must experience it cognitively, and on some levels even sensorially (e.g. pain and pleasure). We may, for example, attribute the same quality as being rooted in essentially distinct substances.  There is a big difference between things in themselves, which is called their essential distinctions. These are substantive features, deeper than modalities, and are simply the principle elements of a being's very existence while being nothing less nor more than the defining features of that being's form. This collection of elements is included in what is meant by the term "essence".

When the essences of two entities may each hold the same attribute, that is not a surprise at all, if only the essences of the two entities bear the same ontogeny, that is, have a common metaphysical ancestor, the same lineage of substance. But if these beings have opposing substances, this will make us wonder how a primal substance could be in opposition with itself.  Is it in a state of poverty and cannot render the same peace to its progeny as it has in itself as a fundamentum realis? IS REALITY THAT POOR?  Then wherefore the wealth of Virtue?  Is it merely a show performed by despots?

But surely the primal essence does not conflict with itself, and yet we may encounter beings who bear all manner of  resemblances to one another in forma, but demonstrate actions and qualities which may be found in one of these beings  but not the other in every case.  Sometimes it may be about matters which are "worldly" and "material" as well as questions of attitude about such matters, but then it may also pertain to the reflective self-acculturation of individual and private personhood, a vocation of perspective unique to each individual. When these are in fundamental opposition, it begs the question of whether these beings are really of the same kind at all. It is so radical of a departure from commonality.

The reason is that if the world of facts is shared in common by both, and if the stated principles of tradition and polity are the same, and also if in fact their bodily forms and their actual conditions per specimen are the same, then it is a wonder that identities could be formed in their personalities which are capable of forming mutually destructive conditions on the basis that they see the world differently.  It makes no prima facie sense.  It makes sense only if we add some additional cause for their conflict.

The cause may be empirical.  It may be that they are under some sort of malevolent control by forces they do not understand which control them behind the fault lines of their opposition.  It may be that these are simply conditions "of the human soul".  Regardless, these forces must be in opposition in order for such overwhelming similar beings to bear such antivalent relations to the point of extreme potentials for destruction of one another and even both.  It begs the question of how fundamental that similitude really is.

That is why we can understand that by appearances things may be extremely alike, but in substance they can be no less different in direct proportion to those appearances of sameness. That is why "as if" behaviors exist, this is why people's behaviors are intelligible at all, and this is why there is evil in the world.

Because substances may be FAKED in their appearance and presentation to the world of observers. This is the basis of all fraud, all crime whatsoever.  All wrongs committed, either through petty and only slightly culpable  negligence or else to the point of the strongest and clearest  intent, and on all points in between. This is only possible because of the presence of sensations which can be distorted, perceptions that can be altered, and thoughts and feelings which can be conditioned.  All of which is conducive to the engineering of public norms through institutions in which people are perversely malconditioned into trusting, believing and obeying.  But it seems that this lifestyle, one of slavish adherence to habitual socializing forces, is the norm as accepted by human nature itself.

So in a world where "everyone's human" (or is it the case?), we have people who may appear quite the same as to all attributes, but in fact make entirely different choices about how to live and how to live among others, and this such that these decisions are absolutely incompatible. Good people will not allow you to walk all over them and humiliate them, neither outwardly nor inwardly. Evil people will willfully attempt to do such things wherever they can get away with it.  Good people are humane, evil people are inhumane.  Good people are honest and truthful, evil people are liars and deceivers. So while outwardly they are the same being, inwardly and in way s far more fundamental to being human in the fullest sense of the term, they are absolutely different kinds of beings.

And that is what morality is all about, the absolute distinction between Good and evil. These categories are not invented out of thin air, they are not made up out of obsessions, they are not proper targets of obsession.  They are principles which reflect substantive differences in beings, even to such a degree that they are different kinds of beings no matter what other evidence to the contrary, just so long as this difference in their being can be determined to be in existence, as manifest by the fruit of their moral action and inaction.  Where these are different in kind, they are only antivalent in kind, and it is a difference which makes for the gravest of implications to consider and judgments to make.

As  these beings are so different in kind, and yet as they appear so much the same outwardly, it is only a matter of time before essence overrules accident, and all their outward bonds are broken and all their inward integrity is manifest plainly, and in just such a way that they will not abide each other outwardly, just as inwardly they never did. For the logical reason that opposing substances cannot fundamentally agree, therefore where they appear to, it is only superficial, and as a means to the end of inevitable conflict.  Just as honest men cannot tell lies (or they're not honest), so dishonest men cannot tell truths (or they're honest).  But we see honest men tell lies to their sworn enemies in order to defend greater truths, and we see dishonest men tell truths to make their lies believable. Yet the more fundamental and logical truth is the absolute foundation for the relative distortions in appearances which manifest only in a conflict between those absolutes, and hence depend upon them for their existence as effects depend upon causes. In this case, contrary causes.

And that is an empirical method  of demonstrating a logical tautological fact, which if were not possible (though empirical evidence proves it it is possible), then it would not be thinkable. But if it were even thinkable at all (even if no one ever thought it), then it must be actual in reality, because the meaning of the terms thought requires, by the nature of the terms, a world where such thought is intelligible, and such a world must have such antivalence within it or it would be unthinkable (for nature does nothing in vain is the common notion here). THE ONLY WAY THIS IS NOT TRUE IF THERE IS NO EVIL IN THE WORLD AT ALL, and so NEVER COULD BE and NEVER WILL BE, and this IS THE WAY WHICH THE WORLD HAS RULED OUT BY ITS MANIFEST ACTIONS THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND IN THE PRESENT! That world was not, and is not, but will be.

But this undermines the worldly appearance concerning commonality of religion on a fundamental level, as those who said The Good cannot produce evil willingly or wittingly, then how could it have produced it at all unless 1) accidentally or 2) by coercion or deception of another party! Yet in spite of these facts, it seems unthinkable that Good had the power to do evil either. And while the mystery of the evil will is mysterious indeed, it doesn't impinge at all on the possibility that The Good has the ultimate power to destroy evil "for good and forever", and that The Good will. But while this is completely understood by some few, others seem oblivious to its thinkability (being essentially different from those who can and especially those who do; different  in essence, and belonging to essentially different origins, manifesting essentially different worlds).

Those others are of a different spiritual kind, per definitionem… 

And since these are on moral matters fundamental to existence itself, so their spiritual nature, which is manifest by the thoughts and feelings on these matters, must also be completely different in kind.  And since the one kind which is prevalent today, and which mostly always was, was the kind which slaughtered the other kind at every opportunity, and yet the kind which was slaughtered was never in such an evil bent, it shows both empirically that they are and were different in kind (from the manifest hostility), and also, per deductionem, in that antivalent diffferences in outward manifestations are the direct expressions of substantive, inward and essential distinctions in kind in mutually direct proportion as the appearances are the same and the actions are antivalent.  And what could be more antivalent than if one seeks utterly to destroy the other?

History shows that, in this world unfortunately, the malevolent and hence the evil sort have the upper hand.  The forces of the "demonic" are ascendant here, as all appearances are concerned, and therefore, by deduction, as far as all substantive facts and essential truths about the world would have it, as they express through these appearances in antivalence to Truth and Justice.

This shows that fundamentally different and yet fundamentally thinkable world conditions are possible, and it shows which one in which we exist now.  It shows also the logic by which the world presents its norms, such that they are sustained by cultural inertia, reinvigorated only by a highly-controlled supply of positive and negative conditioning, and all of which is traced to tyrannies of conventional and unconventional forms, of ancient and modern methodologies, and of blatant and extremely real actuality.  They are manifest in mundi , they are not mere ideas about the world. It is like this: talking about great white sharks while swimming of the coast of Florida in an area known to have frequent shark attacks.

So in this situation, the least one can do is express one's true nature; the only question is "what is that nature, essentially?"  This will determine only the form of the inevitable, but the fact will be in the same form every time and every where.  The form is a dance of pretense of friendship from one side, a spurning of that fraud by the other, and if the odds are in its favor a lashing out against the latter by the former.  But no matter how it appears to turn out, here in this material existence, in the actual and eternal reality, where the consequences of such an antivalent distinction between beings here will manifest there in perfected and completed form without any distractions of false appearances, there will be destinies which by definition are ultimate and eternal Likewise, those destinies will be antivalent in kind, suitable to the natures of their recipients.

Those involved with covert surveillance/harassment of the Good and innocent, who attack them merely because of their own ignorance or their culpability for intentional mischief and aggression, including and especially those who utilize weapons in the form of chemical and psychotronic weapons, especially those who do so covertly and under false pretenses, are criminals anywhere the Honest and the Just exist.  And on the ultimate and inevitable levels of these consequences, and on the basis if the facts and natures involved, it is proper and fair in all lights to say to those fiends that:



No comments: